Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes my point very well. As the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for local government and planning announced, we are considering financial assessments. Often the kind of authority to which she referred could do with some help with procurement—we have seen a number of smaller districts get together—and we would certainly hope to deal with weekly collections in all their various forms.

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend suggests, from a sedentary position, that that was rubbish, and I cannot disagree with him. We are looking at delivering weekly collections and a financial incentive for providing them, but we had to start from the basis of dealing with the legacy—we had first to remove the Audit Commission and the instructions in the Waste and Resources Action Programme suggesting that it was best to close these things down after local elections, and we had to ensure that the fortnightly collections, which the right hon. Lady advocated so strongly when she was Minister for Housing, were also stopped.

Eric Ollerenshaw: How much funding his Department has allocated from the New Homes Bonus scheme (a) to Lancaster and Fleetwood constituency and (b) in total since the scheme’s inception.

Grant Shapps: The first New Homes Bonus allocations were made in April. Over six years, Lancaster will receive some £1.4 million and Wyre some £1.6 million. Across England, the allocations will total almost £1 billion during the spending review period. The next allocations will take place next April.

Grant Shapps: The policies are already having some impact. In the first year of this new Government, house building starts were up 22%. That compares rather favourably with the period during which the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who is now the shadow Secretary of State, was housing Minister, when house building starts were a third lower than they are today.

Clive Betts: The Minister will be aware that some Labour Members are rather sceptical about whether the New Homes Bonus will deliver more homes than were being built before the recession. Given that no research is being done into the effectiveness of the scheme, and that there is no evidence about such schemes in other countries, does he agree that it would be appropriate to have an independent review of the scheme’s effectiveness? If so, what period of time should the review cover?

Grant Shapps: The Chairman of the Select Committee is wrong to say that no research has been done into the scheme. Indeed, the impact assessment stated that it would increase house building starts and, as I have just said, there has been a 22% increase in house building starts in the first year of the policy. Let us compare that with the year before the policy was put in place, when house building under Labour was at its lowest level since the 1920s. There is therefore growing evidence that the New Homes Bonus is working rather well.

Alison Seabeck: I make my usual declaration of an indirect interest.
	The New Homes Bonus is paying out taxpayers’ money but it is not delivering. Planning permissions fell by 17% on year for the first quarter. Let us not confuse that with starts, which took place as a result of investment by the previous Labour Government. The Town and Country Planning Association, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Royal Town Planning Institute are clear that the changes in the Localism Bill will enable developers to buy planning permissions. Are those professionals wrong?

Grant Shapps: The idea that one quarter can be judged against an entire year’s evidence is, of course, nonsense. The evidence for the entire year is that house starts are up by 22%. I would rather take a year’s figures than one quarter’s. We know that councils right across the country, including Labour councils, are welcoming the New Homes Bonus money, which is now starting to make a real difference. Yes, it is right for local authorities and local people to take fully into account the economic benefits of building more homes in their areas.

Grant Shapps: I can announce today that, subject to contracts, more than 100 developers will offer the equity loan product “Firstbuy” and I can also say that this will build more than 10,000-odd homes as we initially anticipated—something like 10,500 in England—and bring up to £500 million worth of investment across the UK.

Andrew Stunell: We have put in place powerful tools and incentives to support local communities to tackle empty homes. Through the New Homes Bonus, communities will receive a direct financial reward for bringing an empty home back into use, and we are investing £100 million to tackle empty homes directly.

Andrew Stunell: The new homes bonus will give local councils every incentive to bring empty homes back into use. They will get matching council tax receipts for six years for each home brought back into use, and that extra funding can be spent on areas that benefit the local community, such as council tax discounts, boosting local services, renovating more empty properties or improving local facilities. The £100 million of investment is part of our affordable homes programme. Applications for that will be opened in the autumn, but I can tell my hon. Friend that 100 organisations have already expressed keen interest in it.

Mark Hoban: Hon. Members will be aware of the recent developments in Greece. There has been considerable media speculation about what this means for the Greek adjustment programme and potential market reactions. I am not going to engage in speculation on what might or might not happen but give the House an account of the facts as they currently stand.
	Let me begin with some background on Greece and the financial assistance package. The international financial assistance package for Greece was agreed in May 2010. The package is composed of two elements: a loan of €30 billion from the International Monetary Fund and €80 billion of bilateral loans from euro area member states to the Greek Government. Although they were created at a similar time, neither the European financial stabilisation mechanism, which is backed by the EU budget nor the euro area-only European financial stability facility contributed to the package for Greece.
	The adjustment package requires Greece to undertake significant actions. There are some very difficult questions that Greece has to address now, because the package assumed that it would be able to access market funding again in 2012, but this now looks unlikely in current market conditions. The House will also be aware of political developments in Greece; a new cabinet has been appointed and the Government will soon be subject to a vote of confidence in the Greek Parliament. Later this month, the Greek Parliament will also be voting on a medium-term fiscal strategy, which is a key element of the conditions attached to the current adjustment programme.
	Against this backdrop, the euro area member states have been discussing the next steps. The Eurogroup, which comprises euro area member states, today released a statement calling on
	“all political parties in Greece to support the programme’s main objectives and key policy measures to ensure a rigorous and expeditious implementation”.
	The statement also said that Ministers will
	“define by early July the main parameters of a clear new financing strategy”.
	This is a statement from the euro area member states only. Let me be clear: the UK has not been involved in these discussions. We did not participate directly in the May 2010 package of support for Greece, and there has been no formal suggestion of UK bilateral loans or use of the EFSM, which is backed by the EU budget. The UK participated in the May 2010 package for Greece only through its membership of the IMF. So the burden of providing finance to Greece is shared between the IMF and euro area member states, and we fully expect this to continue. Our position on that is well understood across the euro area.
	The UK believes that the international community needs a strong IMF as an anchor of global economic stability and prosperity. Over the past few years, we
	have seen how important that role can be in times of crisis, as the IMF has taken swift and decisive action to support the global economy.
	There is, of course, no room for complacency. The Treasury, the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority are monitoring the financial system, including in the euro area, on an ongoing basis. Many scenarios are considered as part of the normal policy development process. Hon. Members will agree that it would not be appropriate for me to discuss the detail of those scenarios. I also remind hon. Members that UK banks have little direct exposure to Greece.
	The continuing uncertainty in the euro area is a reminder of the benefits of taking early action to stabilise and recapitalise the banks, as the UK has done. The UK banking system has developed a strong capital position, which has made it more resilient and will insure it against future risks. UK banks have made good progress in sourcing funding, despite the difficult market conditions.
	The difficulties faced by eurozone countries such as Greece and Portugal reinforce why it is right to pursue the course that we set last year to tackle the deficit. The House should reflect that our deficit is larger than that of Portugal, but that our market rates are similar to those of Germany. The action we have taken to strengthen the country’s finances stands us in good stead during this period of instability in the eurozone. No one on either side of this House should lose sight of the importance of these decisions in protecting the UK economy.

Mark Hoban: The hon. Lady poses a series of very good questions, to which I will respond.
	The hon. Lady asked whether the authorities are working together. I said in response to her initial question that the Treasury, the Bank of England and the FSA are working closely on this matter and monitoring the situation. We are keen to ensure that the UK banking system is resilient. The additional capital that the banks hold now, compared with at the start of the crisis will help with that. As I said, UK banks have not had difficulty in sourcing funding in the market. There is a concern about liquidity risk, but UK banks are continuing to source funding.
	I mentioned in my statement the exposure of UK banks to the Greek Government. It is $4 billion, which is less than our exposure to, for example, the Irish banks. The hon. Lady should bear it in mind that French banks’ exposure is about four times that amount and that German banks’ exposure is about five times that amount. We are taking the matter seriously and considering it carefully, and the Chancellor is currently at the ECOFIN meeting in Luxembourg, where I am sure it will be discussed.
	The hon. Lady talked about reversing the VAT increase. The shadow Chancellor proposed last week a cut in VAT that would cost £51 billion, which would put at risk our credibility in international markets. We have taken the difficult decisions to ensure that UK market rates are in line with those of Germany. The proposal that she put forward, and which her right hon. Friend put forward last week, would mean interest rates rising for families and businesses across this country, putting the recovery at risk. I do not think that is a gamble that we can afford to take.

Jack Straw: Will the Minister first check his figures? Figures in the Financial Times, citing Moody’s and Reuters, suggest that the exposure of British public and private sector banks to Greek debt is €13 billion, and that of Germany and France €34 billion and €53 billion. Those figures are much bigger than the ones that he gave.
	Secondly, will the Minister not recognise that there is now a mood change in Europe? Der Spiegel, the German magazine has had a cover story contemplating the end of the euro as we now know it, and Mr Charles Grant, the well known europhile, has done the same in The Times today. Instead of sheltering behind complacent language and weasel words that we should not speculate, the Government should recognise that this eurozone cannot last. It is the responsibility of the British Government to be open with the British people now about the alternative prospects. Since the euro in its current form is going to collapse, is it not better that that happens quickly rather than it dying a slow death?

Christopher Leslie: Clearly, it is vital and in all our interests that sustainable resolutions are agreed for Greek debt financing, but surely the Government must recognise that there needs to be a smarter approach than simply piling more and more austerity on Greece. What is the Financial Secretary’s response to those, including Boris Johnson, who said yesterday that
	“austerity measures are making the economy worse”
	in Greece?
	Why does the Financial Secretary allow the EU to procrastinate continually and to kick a solution on the bail-out mechanism into the distance repeatedly? He says that the EFSM has not yet been used. The European Council meets at the end of this week. Will the Government ensure that they grasp the nettle this time, and make sure that a permanent eurozone-only bail-out mechanism comes into force as soon as possible rather than pushing it back again? Will he give assurances that the UK will attend any future meetings, which could involve the use of EFSM, even if they are eurozone Finance Minister meetings, because the UK’s empty-chair policy clearly is not working?
	Given that the Financial Secretary tabled a little-noticed Commons motion last week to double the UK’s subscription to the IMF from £10.5 billion to £19.7 billion, was not the Foreign Secretary being disingenuous when he said on “Sky News” earlier that,
	“any such support for Greece is for the eurozone and for the IMF, not for the UK”?
	Britain will end up paying more for the Greek bail-out via the IMF, so will the Financial Secretary come clean and say what he estimates our share of IMF bail-out costs will be for our taxpayers? Surely Ministers should pull their fingers out and ensure that the EU makes some final decisions on all that. Is not it about time that the Government showed some leadership?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman continues to amaze me with his remarks. He seems to forget the role that his Government played in setting up the EFSM. The Conservative party has delivered a commitment to ensure that it is replaced with a permanent mechanism—one matter that will be discussed at the European Council later this week.
	It is clear that we do not want to be part of a bail-out of the Greek economy and that we do not want the EFSM to be used. The fact that we are outside the Eurogroup sends a clear signal that it does not expect us to participate in that bail-out. Of course, Madame Lagarde, the French Finance Minister, made it clear last
	month when she appeared on “Newsnight” that she thought that the resolution for Greece was a matter for the eurozone only.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the increase in the IMF commitment. Of course, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) committed to doubling the resources available for the IMF at the April 2009 G20 summit in this country. I am surprised that hon. Members have such short memories of those matters.

Mark Hoban: As ever, my hon. Friend, whom I congratulate on becoming a member of the Privy Council in the birthday honours list, speaks wise words. The Chancellor has been very clear that we do not wish to be part of a fiscal government for the European Union. That is why we have fought for the right package for economic governance, which safeguards the independence and sovereignty of this House when it comes to making to fiscal decisions. My hon. Friend rightly reminds us why it was right never to join the euro.

[The Northern Ireland Assembly has passed a Legislative Consent Resolution in respect of this Bill.]

Iain Duncan Smith: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	May I first say something that might help the House? Hon. Members might not realise that there are a number of different things in the Bill, and I plan to go through those elements. I will obviously take interventions, and it would be helpful if interventions were made on those sections in due course; otherwise, it will take a long time, and I know colleagues want to speak.
	The Bill is designed to secure this country’s retirement system, putting it on a stable and sustainable footing for the future. I remind the House that our first priority on coming into government was to secure the position of today’s pensioners. We acted immediately to introduce the triple guarantee, meaning that someone retiring today on a full basic state pension will receive £15,000 more over their retirement by way of the basic state pension than they would have under the old prices link. For 10 years, the previous Government talked about this, but we acted in our first year.
	The backdrop to the Bill is that we have taken action, and we have committed to a permanent increase in the cold weather payments to £25—an increase the previous Government had planned to be temporary. The old rate, I remind colleagues, was £8.50. Last winter alone we paid out some £430 million to support vulnerable families. At the same time, winter fuel payments will remain exactly as budgeted for by the previous Government: at £200, and £300 for those over 80.

Iain Duncan Smith: I guarantee the hon. Gentleman that I will discuss the issue, and I hope he will still be here then—no doubt, we can have an exchange on it.
	The Bill addresses important issues, not just that of pension age. It is key that we get this generation saving and make sure that savings count and are not frittered away by the means test. We also have to find a way of sharing the cost of the retirement system between generations, ensuring a fair settlement for both young and old. I know that people think that retirement is all about just the group who are retiring, but as we look down the road ahead it is also very much about the generation who will have to pick up many of the bills. These are not easy decisions, but I want to make sure that the House recognises that we have to take decisions about the next generation; otherwise we will be guilty of falling into the same slot as the previous Government, who left us with the deficit.

Iain Duncan Smith: With respect, I have just said that there are certain elements that would not be legal. That is all that I am saying. The hon. Lady can go on about this point as much as she likes, but I have answered her. She might not like my answer, but that is the one I have decided to give. The fact that the women who will be affected will remain on the same level of retirement, but will be in retirement for two and a half years longer than men is an important feature. I stand by the need to equalise women’s state pension age in 2018.

Iain Duncan Smith: The only answer is that, so far, it is seven years away for women. I recognise the concerns, but I have heard letters from the public stirred up by a number of people, and the facts have been simply incorrect. I am trying to set out the facts as we see them. The hon. Gentleman may disagree with us, but often people fear that something is going to happen overnight. There is some warning.

Jo Swinson: I think there is general acceptance that with increased longevity, the pension age needs to be considered, including the current unfair differentiation between men and women. However, there is a particular group of women who will be badly affected. I welcome the Secretary of State’s saying that he will consider transitional arrangements. Is he willing
	to consider with an open mind amendments in Committee and on Report, or other solutions that might be brought forward, to help that particular group of women?

Liam Byrne: The debate is extremely important and I am glad that the Secretary of State approached his remarks with such care. It is an important debate because our treatment of older people in our country is one of the most important ways in which we judge the health of a society. Those people have made our country what it is today, and, in their retirement, we respect and honour a lifetime’s work.
	Frankly, when we came to power in 1997, too few of our older citizens enjoyed either that honour or that respect. Nearly 30% of our pensioners were forced to live in poverty. The state pension had declined from 20% to just 14% of average male earnings. That is why we set about changing that picture with such speed, passion and determination. That is why we lifted 1 million pensioners out of poverty; why we lifted gross income for our pensioners by more than 40%; why we ensured that no pensioner must live on less than £130 a week; why we introduced the winter fuel allowance, free off-peak travel on buses and free TV licences; and why we increased tax thresholds to ensure that 60% of pensioners now pay no tax. We are proud of our record. It is now set out in the Government’s own figures that pensioner poverty in this country is at its lowest level for 30 years.
	In dealing with such long-term issues, the House could legitimately have hoped that the Government would have built on those changes in a careful and consensual way. Instead, they have built nothing but confusion. Last Monday, the Secretary of State had to slap down his colleague, the noble Lord Freud, on whether there should be a cap on benefits; on Wednesday, we had the spectacle of the Prime Minister not knowing the consequences of his own Welfare Reform Bill; and today the Secretary of State has come to the Dispatch Box when this morning’s newspapers are full of stories of how his Bill might be shredded not in this House, but in the very Treasury that pushed him out to walk this plank in the first place. It is U-turns, confusion and
	blunder, and the poor Secretary of State is forced to sit there in the middle as the House of Commons’s very own Captain Chaos.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for decoding the Secretary of State’s remarks and putting on record that there will be transitional arrangements. I heard about that only by looking this morning at certain blogs written by Liberal Democrat Members, who also expressed great confidence that there would be a compromise on this. We look forward to hearing a lot more about what that compromise will be. It is a shame that it is not in the Bill in time for this Second Reading debate. We would all understand the logic of this if we heard a little more from the Secretary of State about why the Government are introducing this measure.
	The truth is that the Secretary of State used as a justification for his argument the idea that women in this position will somehow be living that much longer to enjoy their new pension. Well, they will draw cold comfort from that. The point is that it is simply not realistic for women in their late 50s, who are truly fearful about being given no time to adjust to their loss of income. Surely that is the critical point for us this afternoon. Women in their later 50s will have earned less over their lifetime; they have lower state pension and private savings than men; many have been unable to join a workplace pension and have interrupted their careers to look after their family; many will have stood down from jobs on the understanding that they would get that state pension early.
	These are not simply my assertions; they are the Government’s own facts. The Pensions Minister was forced to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) that 40% of women aged 56 have no private pension wealth:
	“The proportion of women aged 56-year-old who have no private pension wealth”,
	he told the House on 10 March,
	“is estimated to be 40%.”—[Official Report, 10 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 1266W.]
	What on earth are those women supposed to do with the measures in the Bill? On 4 February he admitted that the median pension saving of a 56-year-old woman is six times lower than that of a man, yet he tells us not to worry because he has a plan. He has a word of reassurance—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State should listen to the plan of the Pensions Minister. I think he will be rather pleased with it, as we were offered words of reassurance and comfort. On 14 February, the Pensions Minister said:
	“One reassurance I can offer is that those women…will be eligible to apply for jobseeker’s allowance”.—[Official Report, 14 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 681-2.]
	They might, I think, call that the final insult.
	There is not much that unites the House these days, but concern about this Bill is fast becoming one of those causes. I understand that even the Department for Work and Pensions Whip, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) who is not in her place on the Treasury Bench has said:
	“I’m pressing Ministers on this because a number of women have raised it with me, and it so happens that members of my own family are in this group. It’s certainly an issue I sympathise with greatly.”
	Her concern is widespread. I believe that the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) has told no less than the Deputy Prime Minister:
	“I agree with the Age UK protestors: these changes should be reconsidered.”
	Nearly half of Liberal Democrat MPs have signed an early-day motion that says that the Government should
	“rethink its retirement timetable in the Bill so that these women have a fairer chance to plan and save for their retirement.”
	Tonight, there is a chance to put a vote behind those words.
	Who will vote to support the Pensions Minister? Once, he never tired of telling the Tories about the error of their ways. He was the man who once said:
	“Pension policy needs to be stable and predictable years ahead, not made up on the back of a cigarette packet.”
	That was still there on his website, www.stevewebb.org, on 6 October 2009. Alongside it, I found another rather apposite quote:
	“It is typical of Tory policy to hit the poorest the hardest.”
	That is still there on his website. This is the Pensions Minister who said:
	“As ever when it comes to pensions, it is as if women are an afterthought. That is clearly not the way in which to change state pension ages.”—[Official Report, 9 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 33WH.]
	That was not on his website. That is what he said in the House of Commons in March last year. Tonight, we have the chance to help the Pensions Minister stand by his words and his record. I think that we should help him with his honour.
	This is a Second Reading debate. We are supposed to be debating the principles of the Bill and we are then asked to vote on those principles. We are asked to do this when it is perfectly clear that the Government no longer believe in the Bill. We are privy to reports in the newspapers that the Government might be working on
	another U-turn. I am not sure whether it is Conservative or Liberal Democrat Members who are behind it, although I know who will claim the credit. The Secretary of State told the
	Financial Times 
	today that there are “issues and concerns” that need sorting out, while senior Ministers, says the
	Daily Mail
	,
	“are telling the Chancellor he must think again.”
	The Secretary of State, it says, is “sympathetic”. I have to ask, then: why are we voting on a Bill that the Government do not believe in? The Chief Secretary does not believe in it; the Pensions Minister does not believe in it; half of the Liberal Democrat Members do not believe in it; the Tory Whips do not believe in it. What on earth are we doing going into the Division Lobbies to vote to punish half a million women through a Bill that no one believes in? Will the hon. Gentleman answer that question now?

Jonathan Evans: Indeed, and one of the difficulties in this regard is to do with the first change, to which almost all e-mails refer: that women were getting the pension at 60 and that that is now gradually being moved up to 65. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) referred to his family being affected. Well, my wife is affected by these changes, but we in this House were aware of them because we legislated for them in 1995. [Interruption.] Yes, we have known about them, but we have known about them only here, because there has not been much dissemination of this information outside the Chamber to the rest of the public. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) for indicating that that is so. The idea that the retirement age might then be moved up to 66 is not new. It was debated in this House back in 2007, and legislation was put on to the statute book. What we are doing now is moving the first of these dates forward, and in my view that is necessary. It is perfectly clear that a significant saving will be made.
	The Secretary of State made a typically sensitive address, which was well received on both sides of the House, and not only because he said he was prepared to listen. I am staggered that any Minister who says they are prepared to listen to an argument is treated with contempt from the Opposition Benches. [Interruption.] Absolutely: it is an indication of what Labour Members were used to when their party was in government. I commend my right hon. Friend on his approach, however, and I am impressed by the sum of £30 billion.
	The Opposition propose that we should not take these steps for a while, and that we should instead return to a 2020 or 2022 timetable. The argument that everything the Government do is being done too fast is a familiar Opposition refrain. It in effect suggests that we can somehow just pass the responsibility on to succeeding generations and not grasp it ourselves. I think we must grasp it ourselves, but that does not mean
	I am unsympathetic to the arguments about that specific cohort of women who are affected in a particularly negative way.
	I know there were debates on these measures in the other place, but I am not persuaded that we must defer taking them to beyond 2020. I am not going to talk about the implications of the equality legislation so often supported by Opposition Members, even though that may have led to a situation whereby what was stated in the coalition agreement cannot now be put into effect. However, what I am certainly uncomfortable about is any woman having to wait more than an additional year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be aware that Sally Greengross—Baroness Greengross, a Cross Bencher widely respected in this area—put forward a compromise proposal that has much merit, based as it is on the idea that no woman waits for more than a year. The restriction was limited in that way, and the measure was exceptionally intelligently crafted.
	I have read Lord Freud’s responses to this debate. He said that the proposal would cost not £10 billion, as the Opposition suggest, but only £2 billion. Given that I want to husband public resources—and that we apparently have the Opposition’s support for shifting retirement ages forward from 2034 and 2044 to dates that are significantly earlier, saving perhaps £2 billion—I am much more attracted to the idea of matching that saving and making far greater savings elsewhere.
	Lord Freud responded to the debate by pointing out the gender equality legislation—the equality provisions of European law—that might make this a difficult proposition. However, I am not persuaded that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s Department lacks minds sufficiently sharp to overcome this difficulty. [Interruption.] Yes, I am absolutely sure that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), could draft the legislation required; but if not, he has all the necessary skill within his Department.
	I am very happy to tell all of my constituents who have written to me on this issue that, because of what is happening with longevity, it is fair, if we are asking men to wait a further year, to ask women to wait another year. There are those who say it is a double whammy because we are also seeing equalisation from the age of 60, but that is already a part of the architecture and cannot be taken into account. I am certainly prepared to argue that case.
	I want to make two final points that are connected not with this issue but with other aspects of the Bill. In it, adjustments are made to the financial assistance scheme. Many of my constituents have been affected by the collapse of Allied Steel and Wire. On the question of the general attitude of Labour toward pensioners, many of ASW’s pensioners know the “assistance” they got from Labour: none whatsoever. That is the reality. However, the truth is that, under the financial assistance scheme, many people are not even going to get the 90% that was flagged up as their likely reimbursement. I hope we get opportunities to address that issue. I am looking across at my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams)—I do not know whether I should call him my hon. Friend; he might be offended by that. My hon. colleague and I have discussed this issue, and it is
	important that we return to it to address some of the injustices in the operation of the financial assistance scheme as it affects ASW pensioners.

Anne Begg: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), but I will disagree with quite a bit of what he said.
	I am disappointed about the change in the financial assistance scheme from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, particularly in relation to Richards Textile factory in Aberdeen, which went bust with the collapse of its pension scheme. Although the very hard work of many Labour Back Benchers ensured that those pensioners did not lose all their money, they still feel aggrieved that they do not have the same cover as those who subsequently entered the pension protection fund and that they do not get quite as much as those covered by it.
	Let me start by saying which parts of the Bill I agree with to show that not everything in it is bad, although quite a lot is. I agree wholeheartedly with the lifting of the default retirement age and I only wish that my Government had done that. I have a friend who has been told by his employer that he has to retire at 65 and he does not want to, but unfortunately his birthday falls on the wrong side of the divide.
	I am also very glad that the Government are going ahead with the national employment savings trust. There was a bit of worry at the time of the election that some people in business who were not too keen on it, particularly on auto-enrolment, might put pressure on the coalition Government, who I am glad resisted. NEST is certainly the way forward for occupational pensions, to ensure that there is pension cover for everyone and that most people will not have to depend on the basic state pension as their sole income in retirement. That is very important.
	I also agree with the proposal to bring auto-enrolment forward to July 2012 for large companies. If they are ready to go, the sooner the scheme gets up and running the better and the sooner it is tested the better, because part of the reason for rolling out auto-enrolment is to test how it works in practice.
	So those things are all good, but that is as far as that goes and there are issues of concern. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), I am concerned about the lifting of the auto-enrolment earnings threshold by £2,500. I tried to intervene about this early in the Secretary of State’s speech, but lots of other people were jumping up and down at the time. The problem is that low earners might not always be low earners. Auto-enrolment is important in getting people into the scheme as soon as possible and in ensuring that even low earners are enrolled in a pension scheme. If those people continue to earn similar amounts for the rest of their working life, the scheme might not have the returns that they would expect, but no one knows, at the start of their working life, what their eventual earnings will be and we should always err on the side of caution in ensuring that people enrol. The raising of the threshold could result in about 600,000 people not being enrolled who otherwise would have been. It has been said that those people could opt in, but it is highly unlikely that many people on such low incomes would do so. If the Government introduced a foundation pension or a pension for the state, which the Secretary of State put into context, the scheme would make a difference for people making such low contributions.
	Even someone earning just over £5,000 a year could make a valuable contribution to their eventual occupational pension.
	I worry about that issue and I worry when I hear that the threshold might go up to £10,000 or more in future, because the whole point of auto-enrolment and of NEST was to make things easy, to make belonging to an occupational pension fund a no-brainer and to ensure that everyone who was in work would automatically pay into an occupational fund. People who are not auto-enrolled and who are not in the pension fund will lose out on the employers’ contributions as well, so they will lose out not only on their potential pension earnings towards the end of their life but on what we often think of as deferred wages in the employers’ contribution.
	I am also concerned about the introduction of the three-month wait, for many of the same reasons I have just given. The shadow Secretary of State has already made the arguments, which are important to remember.
	All those issues could probably have been swallowed if they had been the only things we were concerned about, but the big sticking point in the Bill, which I suspect most Members will be talking about this afternoon, is the acceleration of the state pension age, particularly the anomaly that hits the 500,000 women who at very short notice will have to wait more than a year for their pension. I wonder whether the Government have analysed exactly who will lose out as a result of the measures and which women will not be in work at the age of 66, when they get their state pension. The figure of £10 billion has been bandied around for how much it would cost not to go ahead with the proposal, but I suspect that is a gross figure. I do not know whether the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), has any idea how much the welfare bill will go up as a result of people’s falling out of work before they reach the age of 66.
	I agree that it is right that the state pension age should rise and indeed inevitable that it will rise, and I accept that there are issues to do with longevity, but I am concerned that we are potentially creating not a pensioner poor but a group of people who become the new poor because they have fallen out of work in the last years of their working life and are struggling to get by on benefits. It is not good enough for the pensions Minister to say that for anyone who falls out of work before reaching the state pension age and who does not have a pension they can draw early, there is always jobseeker’s allowance or employment and support allowance. The contributory element of JSA lasts only six months and the Government propose that the contributory element of ESA will last only a year. Nowadays, women expect to have their own wages, but their qualifying for income-related JSA or ESA will depend on the household income and whether they have a working partner. For many women, that misses the point. Quite a few women in my constituency say, “I’ve only got a pension of £1 a week.” What they mean is that they have 60% of their husband’s pension and £1 a week on top of that, but they still see that £1 a week as their pension and they feel very aggrieved about that.

Pamela Nash: Does the hon. Lady agree that, as we are coming out of carers week, the Government should remember the 37% of women affected by the state pension age increase who will not be in the work force in the last years of their working lives, as the Government call it, and who have responsibilities caring for an elderly or ill relative or for their own grandchildren? They will be among those who suffer most as a result of the increase.

Anne Begg: I could not agree more. It is imperative that we get that sorted out now. I am sure that other local authorities will not be any different from my local authority, which knows that cuts are coming. My local authority managed to have a funding black hole of £25 million. Before there was any economic disaster in any other part of the world, it happened in Aberdeen. I will not talk about that being a Liberal Democrat council, but it was. That has resulted in large numbers of local authority employees—not only women, but predominantly women—being offered early retirement, which councils have been encouraging their employees to take because they do not want to go down the route of compulsory redundancies.
	People have been signing up and are still signing up for early retirement without the full knowledge that what they are signing up for is a lower pension that will not be supplemented with the basic state pension when they reach the age of 63 or 64, as they thought it would be. In some cases, they may have to wait another two years. Their entire financial planning was based on the expectation that they would get whatever the basic state pension would be at that time. It is £105 now, so it will be more than that, and the flat rate pension may have come in. They were expecting at least another £100 a week in the income that they have worked out they will need to survive.
	The short notice is the injustice. The Government must look at this again. They cannot leave out this group of women, who did not have the chance to build up their pension protection but who took on the burden of care in the community, saving the Government billions of pounds. The same group of women have had to fight many of the equality battles, yet it is being hardest hit,
	and it cannot be right that, because of the acceleration, the Government are making them pay the price not of deficit reduction—according to the coalition, the proposals will not apply until after the deficit is meant to have gone—but of the longevity of other groups.
	I accept the Secretary of State’s point when he says that the coalition Government discovered that their proposed acceleration was illegal. It would probably be illegal under European law because the Government had already said that they would equalise the pension age of men and women. That makes me wonder what else in the coalition document might be illegal. Has someone been through it with a fine-toothed comb? If that was such a glaring error, have others sneaked into the coalition agreement, or was it just this issue where someone failed to notice that signing up for the equalisation of the state pension age might not be fulfilled by the words of the coalition document?
	I will vote against the Bill because it fails on the basic principle of fairness, and in pensions policy fairness is all. When those now sitting on the Government Benches were in opposition, fairness was all they talked about. The previous Labour Government went a long way in introducing fairness into the pensions system. Pension credit was certainly a revolutionary policy that lifted many pensioners out of poverty and transformed the incomes of many pensioners, who saw their incomes double when Labour was in power. Fairness must be at the heart of pensions policy, but the Bill does not pass the fairness criterion.

Ben Gummer: The salient fact of this debate is that by the time it finishes at 10 o’clock, the average age to which we and our constituents might expect to live will have increased by an hour and a half. If I were to speak for 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour, which I will not, then merely in the course of my speech average life expectancy would have increased by four minutes. I hope that that is compensation for what hon. Members are about to endure.
	The simple fact of demography that for every hour that passes 15 minutes is added to the age to which we, as a population, can expect to live forces us to revisit the state retirement age—the age at which people stop paying taxes and start depending largely on the fruits of others’ labours. It is a fact that is unlikely to change in the half century to come. In fact, if the experience of
	the past few years is anything to go by, the acceleration of our expected mortality rates will only increase, rendering irrelevant and insufficient all the predictions on which we currently rely. There is near consensus that maintaining the existing pension age is unaffordable and that we should correct that by ratcheting up the state pension age year by year to reflect increasing life expectancy.
	However, I am worried by the idea that by the mid part of this century, asking people to retire at 70—incidentally, the age intended by Lloyd George in his great Act of 1908—will be seen as the way to fix this problem, because we may not correct everything that we hope to correct just by increasing the state pension age and doing everything contained in this excellent Bill. Although I support the intention of the Bill and the immediate steps that it takes, the Government need rapidly to revisit the conventions and means by which successive Governments address the central problem of increasing life expectancy and the effect of that on the Exchequer and those working to fund it. Otherwise, we will again end up in a situation that is unsatisfactory and inadequate. It is unsatisfactory because with every increase in the state pension age, we inflict another set of injustices and unfairnesses on those who are approaching that moment in their lives. The predicament of the relatively small group of women we have been debating is a sure indication of far greater problems to come for Governments in future years.
	Because we are facing this cross-generational challenge, it is incumbent on us to try to forge a consensus between the parties about the rules by which we deal with pensions policy. One of those rules is suggested by the example of the women who are particularly affected by the Government’s proposed changes. When times are normal—these are not normal times—there might be a rule whereby people are given at least 10 years’ notice before we change their pension entitlements or the age at which they can claim them. Perhaps the case of the class of ’53, as they call themselves, is the test by which the Government will be measured in this respect.
	Although I understand why the Government might fairly ask that people work an additional year to deal with the horrendous deficit and national debt we have been left, to ask a relatively small group of people to work an additional two years with six years’ notice is a very big ask, not least because it calls into question other excellent parts of the Bill that are designed to encourage saving. We cannot ask people to save and then give them no time in which to do so. I hope that in considering a way to smooth the edge of this part of the legislation, the Government will not only fashion a compromise for the women who are being asked to work an additional 13 to 24 months, but thereby establish the first set of conventions by which successive Governments can deal with this issue.
	Another unfairness in the Bill, which was not intended by the Government, results from the change from RPI to CPI for uprating. Many of my constituents who are on occupational schemes, mostly from British Telecom, have found that their pensions have been changed only two years after they were renegotiated between the trustee and the pensioners. The trustee claims that it has been forced to do that by the rules of the scheme. My constituents and I would be interested to know the degree of consideration the Minister gave to the effect that his changes to the uprating regulations would have
	on the occupational schemes of previously nationalised industries, because they have had a very adverse effect on people who thought that they had funded schemes.
	Those are the unfair and unsatisfactory parts of the Bill, which I consider to be largely good. I understand that the Opposition supported the change from RPI to CPI, but on a temporary basis. With characteristic innumeracy, they therefore lack the central challenge that confronts us, which is not just the deficit that we must deal with between now and 2016, but the period after that. There is an idea that in 2016 the deficit will somehow come to an end, we will be finished with our problems, and we can then extract the cheque book from our pocket and go on another splurge. That will sadden people, because if we did that, we would find ourselves with one of the highest debt to GDP ratios in the developed world—higher than most of our developed competitors and significantly larger than almost all of our developing competitors, just at the point at which they move up the value chain to meet us on high-end manufacturing, learning-based skills and value-added services.
	At that point, we will be faced with a demographic scene that is not much altered from the one the Government look at now. We need only look at the support ratio to tell us that. It currently sits at about four workers per pensioner—the lowest in the history of the state pension. Under the Pensions Act 2007, it would decrease by 2023 to 3.11 workers per pensioner. That figure will improve under the Bill to 3.35—a difference of 6%. At that point we will still be slipping down, and none of this changes the central projection to 2058—150 years after the introduction of the state pension—when there will be 2.74 workers per pensioner. There will then be fewer than three workers for every pensioner they must support.
	Pensions are a double-sided promise. On the one hand, we, as parties engaging in government or opposition, must give people the security to know what they will receive in their retirement. That is why I urge the Government to look carefully at the women who will be particularly affected by this change, and at those who are coming to the end of their working life in the public sector. As many of their accrued rights as possible must be respected, because that is what was promised to them, whether or not it was prudent to do so at the time.
	In understanding that, we have to be far more brutal with the younger generation, which has many more years to work. Frankly, younger people will not be able to have a pension of the size that their parents and grandparents have come to expect, because of the horrendous deficit and the enormous debt that we have been left by the previous Government—larger than those of almost all our competitors around the world. As a result of that debt, we will have less to spend on education, training and infrastructure improvement. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) smiles, but it is true that as a result of the actions of his Government, we have less to spend on things that will grow the economy and there will be fewer tax receipts to pay for the welfare state that we have come to expect as a nation.

Ben Gummer: What I found surprising about that comment from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) was that it completely ignored the sensible intervention by his colleague, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who made quite plain the difficulty of bringing forward the state pension age rise too quickly because of its manifest unfairness on manual labourers, who have a much lower life expectancy than others. That is a central problem that we have to deal with and a reason why the state pension age will become inadequate. At some point, we have to address that unfairness, whether by measuring the length of period worked or by doing far more than has been done so far to improve the occupational health of large numbers of people in this country.
	We come back to the essential problem: there is not only no money now, but there will be no money for many decades to come if we are to have the money to invest in growing our economy. Frankly, we will have no welfare state to pay for if we do not address these big issues now. We will be lying to future generations and forcing upon them a generational theft if we are not straight with them now about the reality that confronts them. That is my generation, as much as it is that of the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). We will be expected to save considerably more and receive considerably less from the state. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown)—she is a Whip and I will not criticise her—is huffing and puffing away, but the fact is that between 2002 and 2006, the structural deficit was run up, inflicting this problem on generations of people to come. The worst affected will be those on low incomes and the unemployed—the very people her party was founded to protect.
	We must be honest with future generations and correct the small inadequacies in this Bill. I urge the Minister to look carefully at the long-term reforms that are needed in our pensions system if we are not to come back here year after year to let down pensioners on the promises that were given to them in ages past.

Malcolm Wicks: Back in the 1940s, Aneurin Bevan referred to the ageing of our population as the “peculiar problem” of the era. When one thinks of the controversies just of the last few weeks over the national health service, the quality or lack of it in our care homes, and now the pension age, one can see how prescient the Bevanite analysis was.
	I will argue that pensions policy is at its best when it has an understanding of the pace and grain of people’s lives and of the society—an understanding of how people work, their employment patterns, care patterns and family patterns. Looking back, one can see examples of that. Lloyd George—a reminder that there were once great Liberal reformers—was urged to introduce the first old-age pension, albeit at a slightly measly 70 years old, because working people were, rather peculiarly and in a sense for the first time, outliving their working
	lives, so it was asked where their incomes would come from. Thus occurred the birth, more than 100 years ago in this Parliament, of the first old-age pension. Much more recently, around the 1970s, Barbara Castle and other Secretaries of State realised that the national insurance system was inadequate when it came to women’s caring responsibilities, and credits started to be built into it.
	My question is whether, by introducing uniform state pension ages—I listened with great care to what the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) said on the matter—we are now fashioning a policy that makes sense given the different life cycles of people in this country depending on their occupation and social class.
	I think about my own family’s experience. My dad and my mum left school at 14 to work, and my dad had jobs in the market in Islington long before that age. At that time, the vast majority of people left school at that type of age. If they worked through to 65 or so, they would have been working for half a century or more. I did not get my first proper job until I was 21. I remember my nan from Islington—Hansard must record “nan”, not “nanny”, because I do not want to excite Conservative Members—saying to me when I was 16, “Malcolm, why haven’t you got a job yet?” She just could not understand why I was not yet working.
	My own three children were fortunate enough to go to university and then do some postgraduate qualifications—one of them very ably taught, by the way, by a young lecturer at Bath university, whose name I temporarily forget. I often wonder what happened to him. I refer, of course, to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb). My children did not get their first proper jobs, rather than holiday jobs, until their early to mid-20s. That is a pattern among certain middle class and professional families.
	Today, some people coming up to claiming their state pension will have left school at 15 or 16, but some will not have got their jobs until their late teens, early 20s or even mid-20s. Are we being sensible when we say that people who have worked in hard, tough manual jobs for a very long time should be able to claim their state pension only at the same time as those of us from cosier professional and middle-class backgrounds? That is the issue that I wish to explore today.
	The proposals in the Bill are based on certain assumptions, and two in particular. One is that the generalisation about life expectancy is true for all social groups. Others have questioned that assumption. I had an opportunity to intervene on the Secretary of State about it earlier, and I want to question it in a little more detail. The Minister of State and the House have heard my argument before. Alongside the gender issue, which is hugely important, there is the social class dimension, which the data show mainly affects men. It needs some airing and some debate, and I would argue that it also needs some solution. There is the assumption about life expectancy, which is broadly true but with some important qualifications, and also the assumption that if we keep raising the state pension age—and occupational pension ages, by the way, although I know that is another debate—the market will respond and jobs will be available. I want to question that assumption, too.

Malcolm Wicks: I was solving many other problems in 1975—they were so numerous that I cannot think of an example. I believe that there are solutions to the problems. They might be complex, but if the Minister will bear with me I will come on to them.
	I first wish to make my other contrarian point about the general assumption that it will be all right if we keep raising the state pension age—and indeed the occupational pension age. It is about employment patterns. At the moment it is not the case that 90%-odd of men and women are working until they are 65 and 60 respectively, and that if we keep increasing the pension age by a year or two there will be jobs available. That is not the situation at all. Labour force survey data show that almost a quarter of men aged 50 to 64, and more than a quarter of women aged 50 to 59, are classed as economically inactive. Many of them are not working at the moment. Why do we assume that there will be jobs for them if they have to work for a few more years? More specifically, 39% of men aged 62 are currently not working. By the age of 64, the figure is 52%. Among women aged 58, two years before their current state pension age, 36% are not working. The assumption that general life expectancy increases will benefit everyone, and the at least implicit assumption that jobs are available, are at least partly illusory.
	I am not challenging the demographic logic, or the fact the state pension ages—and, may I say in a reasoned way, occupational pension ages—have to increase. Of course they do. That is the logic of demography, and it helps us safeguard our welfare state system. I ask, however, whether the situation is right for a man or woman who left school at 15 or 16. They may have had caring responsibilities or periods of unemployment, but they will have essentially worked for 49 or so years. They currently get their pension at 65, in the case of men. Is it right that they should be on the same playing field as the professional person who left university and did not do the type of job that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) described, as a packer, cleaner, steelworker or miner, but who is from the professional classes, rather like many of us who are currently in this room? Is it right that the same state pension age should apply to both groups? I do not think that that is a state pension system that is in line with, and goes with the grain of people’s lives. It does not seem fair to many people.
	I meet many people from professional classes—politicians, business people, think tankers and broadcasters—who dread retirement. They want to keep working. They are hale and hearty and often at the top of their game. They want to carry on working, and that is a good thing. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) gives an important example. In 10 years, he will constitute another important example.
	That is right and proper, but people who have done physically demanding work are literally worn out in an old-fashioned sense. Some of the steelworkers I met when we set up the Pension Protection Fund were physically worn out. They do not want to keep working for another couple of years. They want to retire to have a well deserved rest.
	What is the answer? I think that we should try to calculate the records of those who left school at 15 or 16. I know that it is a challenge for the civil service. I have not got the briefing paper—the Minister has it and I am sure that he has read it. Given national insurance records, employment records and perhaps income tax records, should not we be able to calculate that people who have worked for 49 years can retire at the
	age of 65—for men and women in due course—rather than assume that they can carry on working? It is a big issue for social administration and it needs a bright Minister to tackle it. The Minister should give it rather more attention than I think he has given it so far.

Richard Graham: Today’s debate takes place more than 100 years after the Old Age Pensions Act 1908 was introduced by a slightly different coalition Government, led by Lloyd George, but including Churchill in his Liberal phase. The most important change since then is clearly in life expectancy. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and other speakers this evening have already tackled that in forensic detail.
	I think it would be helpful if I detailed a couple of salient facts as an introduction to my views about Second Reading. A hundred years ago, life expectancy was slightly less than the pension age of 65. That would imply a pension age of about 87 today. To put it another way, 10 million people who are alive today will live to be 100. Clearly, something must be done, and I am afraid that it falls to this coalition Government to do it. The Labour party had its chance. In 2002, the Labour Green Paper fudged the issue and, two years later, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions clearly told the TUC that raising the pension age would not happen. The message today from the shadow Secretary of State and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who is in her place, blithely recommending as an alternative to some aspects of the Bill a speeded-up increase in the pension age beyond 2020 can therefore be treated with a huge bucket of salt. Their paymasters, the trade unions, simply would not let it happen. As is so often the case, it falls to the Government to tackle the difficult questions and decide how to balance the interests of future pensioners with those who are earning, paying taxes and paying for those pensions.
	The most critical issue of fairness that the Bill must tackle is intergenerational fairness. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced the Bill, he highlighted several aspects that are worth mentioning. He referred to life expectancy, and I hope that I have covered that point. He also mentioned fairness between generations, which is the basis for the main provisions of the measure. He talked about the importance of savings and their not being frittered away through a means-tested system. I echo that strongly. Correspondence from my constituents in Gloucester constantly reflects the unfairness between people living next door to one another, some on means-tested pensions and others not, due to their small amounts of hard-earned savings.
	The other key aspect is auto-enrolment. I pay tribute to the Labour party for the previous Government’s work on auto-enrolment, but once again this Government will have to implement the scheme. We have examined the details of simplifying the administrative aspects, ensuring an opt-out, not an opt-in, getting the self-certification from defined contribution schemes and so on. I welcome those aspects of the Bill as well as the changes to occupational schemes, in which I should declare an interest as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on occupational pensions.
	It is notable that no Labour Members referred to judges’ pensions. An extraordinary silence has come upon my friends on the Opposition Benches. Several Government Members have pointed out that having zero contributions to the judges’ pension scheme is surely a massively unfair anomaly, which Work and Pensions Ministers are quite correct to change. That should have been done years ago.
	That brings us to the one aspect of the Bill that causes hon. Members of all parties some concern: the effect on women born between December 1953 and October 1954. I have written to the Secretary of State and the Chancellor, inquiring whether it would be possible to introduce some flexibility to tackle the specific problems of women in that age group. I received a letter from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), which tackles the question in some detail. He said that
	“implementation of the increase to 66 between December 2018 and April 2020 is the option that best balances sustainability with fairness in the face of demographic change.”
	I recognise that Ministers have a difficult task in trying to balance often conflicting aspects of dealing with pensions. I wondered—the Minister has agreed to consider the matter—whether the same argument could be made even more convincingly for stretching the period from December 2018 to the autumn of 2020 so that the increased period of waiting for their pension for those women would effectively be reduced from 24 to 18 months. I am confident, given everything that has been said today, that Ministers will consider that during the Bill’s later stages. I await what happens on Report.
	It is important that our constituents understand that today we are considering and debating the principles of the Bill. The detail will be examined in Committee and again in the Chamber. I believe that the principles for tackling critical issues such as savings, auto-enrolment, occupational pensions, judges’ pensions and changes in life expectancy should occupy our time here today.
	I was genuinely disappointed by the contribution of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who gave a speech that contained a series of stories, rumours and quotes from newspaper articles—admirable soundbites in the absence of any policy. One must conclude that the shadow Secretary of State has no more policy on pensions than he had money left in the Treasury coffers a year ago. Although he said that he was proud of Labour’s pensions record, and the right hon. Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) gave one or two examples, such as the creation of the PPF, which are to be commended, I wonder whether Labour Front Benchers’ pride extends to the 75p increase in the state pension that was offered to my constituents so very recently. It is difficult to be proud of policy, but if Government Members are to be allowed some pride, it is in restoring the earnings link to the basic state pension, added to the triple guarantee that ensures that the basic state pension will always rise by at least 2.5% every year. That is a huge contrast to 75p.
	I therefore believe that the Bill has a lot in it to commend to Members on both sides of the House. This issue should be non-partisan and non-tribal. We all want a good, affordable, sustainable pension for our constituents. I shall therefore support the Bill, which will make a significant difference to the 7 million people of
	both sexes who are currently under-saving, resolve the scandal of judiciary pensions, and allow for sensible reflections on aspects for women born within a particular year.

John Glen: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I think I will address the thrust of her comments in a few minutes.
	The second issue is our active ageing population. Notwithstanding the remarks of the right hon. Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks), who pointed out the differences in life expectancy between regions and socio-economic backgrounds, many people expect to lead an active retirement, which is why I welcome the proposal to remove the default retirement age. That will be important in allowing people to do more and to continue working if they wish.
	The third problem that the Bill addresses is the lack of saving. It has been said that 7 million people are not saving enough for retirement. The problem is the general sentiment that things will be all right on the night—people expect to be able to sell a property or make some money to put in a pension pot. The Government are facing up to these tough issues, and have realised that that is not a realistic proposition.
	I recognise that there is a gap between the long-term solution and the needs of those currently near the pensionable age, and many have acute concerns about what will happen—many Members have referred to the cohort of women who face a particularly tough time. All the indications are that the Government are prepared to acknowledge and address those concerns, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the pensions Minister will have an ingenious solution. However, I would like briefly to draw the House’s attention to a few specific issues.
	Despite the welcome introduction of the triple lock, it is clear that pensioners feel a great sense of vulnerability. They know that they have a reasonable expectation of living many years, and are anxious that at a time of low interest rates and little investment income their basic state pension should grow. I therefore welcome the Government’s proposal. I recognise that it will cost a lot of money and will take time to work out, but its general thrust is the right one.
	It has to be acknowledged that we have seen massive changes as a result of the increase in life expectancy over the past 50 or 60 years. Life expectancy at 65 has grown upwards of 10 to 15 years over the past two generations, and it would be helpful if the Government set out what we are aiming for. Notionally, we will have parity between genders over the next 10 years, but what are we aiming for? Are we saying that everyone should have a right to expect a fixed number of pensionable years? Are we seeking to address the statistical evidence on demographics and regional differences, or should we recognise, building on the comments of the right hon. Member for Croydon North about the level of complexity and a complexity deficit, that we will not be able to make the pensions system sufficiently complex to address every one of those factors?
	We have to recognise that we need to do something, particularly about the 33,000 women who face this two-year delay, but it would help if we set out some broader principles. My generation—those under 40—will have to bear a much greater responsibility. I expect to work much longer, although I might have a different job from my father, who worked on the land. We need to send the message so that the next generation and those after know to put more into their pension pots and expect to retire later. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) has already mentioned the fact that 10 million people now living will live to 100. That is beyond the realistic expectations or assessments of most people today, but it will impose strains on public finances, health care costs and end-of-life care, which are the issues that we must address. We must not fail to consider my generation and those that come after because they do not seem to matter today.
	I welcome the changes to auto-enrolment, but I ask the Government to avoid unnecessary and bureaucratic changes for small business people, especially those in the tourism or retail sectors, where staff turnover is high. Too often justice is not done in the detail to the
	headlines of Government. We need to ensure that small employers do not bear a disproportionate cost.
	The free eye tests, free prescriptions, free bus passes, free television licences for the over-75s and the free winter fuel payments, along with the Government’s commitment to solidify the £25 payment in bad weather, are welcomed by many. Certainly, they are welcomed by the poorest members of my constituency—in Bemerton Heath and the Friary, for example—who rely on the payments year in, year out. I hesitate to say it, however, but is it really fair for those earning more than, say, £50,000 a year in retirement to have that extra money? There is usually a snigger, a gasp and a “Well, we don’t really need it”. However, in the assessment of true fairness, what value accrues to the public purse from expenditure on those people?
	I welcome the Bill, which establishes the right direction, but there is still work to be done in certain areas, which I hope I have set out. No Government, past or present, will get everything right. I applaud the work of my hon. Friend the pensions Minister and wish him well as he unravels these complex issues and develops a pensions system fit, in all respects, for the nation we live in and the number of years we can expect to live.

Nicholas Boles: First, I should tell Members that I am absolutely not a pensions expert; I have never spoken on the subject before in my life. I have therefore found this debate particularly
	enlightening, and I want to single out the speech of the right hon. Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) as it was extraordinarily illuminating and provoking. I hope Ministers will look at the issue he raised for the long term—after this Bill has been passed and changes have been made—and address the disparity between people who start work in their teens and those of us who are lucky enough to start work in our early to mid-20s.
	I want to focus not so much on the detail of pensions, but rather on the context in which the Government are taking this Bill and its measures through Parliament. It is important to address that context because it explains so many of the difficult, controversial and even painful decisions the Government are making. It also informs and defines the approach taken by Her Majesty’s Opposition, which can be summarised by the refrain we have heard so eloquently and passionately from so many Opposition Members’ mouths tonight: that it just is not fair.
	Let us first consider the context from the Government’s point of view. Our strategy is simple. It is based on our reluctantly coming to the understanding that everyone in this country will suffer more—will suffer most, indeed—if the Government do not quickly deal with our unsustainable public finances. I use the term “unsustainable public finances” rather than “deficit” because it is important to understand that this is not just about dealing with the current deficit; it is also about putting in place a long-term platform of sustainable public finances. It is not about what we need to do between now and 2015; rather, it is about what we need to put in place for our country for the next two, three and four decades. The insight that everything must serve this overall objective of putting our public finances on a sustainable footing—

Yasmin Qureshi: I have been a little bemused by suggestions from Government Members that the previous Labour Government did nothing on pensions. When Labour came to power in 1997, one of the biggest challenges it faced was tackling pensioner poverty and improving the quality of life for older people. We must bear it in mind that the Tories had been in power for 18 years. Between 1979 and 1997, 29% of pensioners were living in poverty. Between 1997 and 2010, Labour made huge achievements, as a result of which average gross pensioner incomes increased by more than 40% in real terms, and more than 1 million pensioners were lifted out of poverty. No pensioner need now live on less than £130 per week, compared with £69 per week in 1997. The winter fuel allowance, free off-peak travel on local buses, free television licences and other benefits have helped to take 1 million pensioners out of poverty.
	Government Members seem to suffer from collective amnesia. The previous Labour Government established the independent Turner commission because they recognised, as we all now do, that there was an ageing population and that the retirement age had to be changed. However, a consensus was built as a result of the Turner commission on three things: linking the basic state pension to earnings; raising the retirement age to 68 by 2046, starting in 2024; and making private pensions opt-out instead of opt-in pensions, with employers also making a contribution. However, the Government’s proposal goes back on that consensus, raising the state pension age for women so rapidly that some women in their 50s will have to work an extra two years that they have not planned for, and raising the pension credit age so rapidly that the poorest pensioners would lose around 10% of their lifetime retirement income. Reducing the number of people eligible for automatic enrolment in a pension scheme has also had an effect. Let me deal with each of those separately.
	Labour’s Pensions Act 2007, in which we accepted some of the things carried out by the Conservative Government in 1995, set out the timetable for equalising the state pension age for men and women, legislating to increase it to 65 for men by 2020, and then to 66 by 2027, 67 by 2036 and 68 by 2046. The coalition agreement stated that the parties had agreed to
	“hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women.”
	However, the Bill proposes to accelerate equalisation for women by 2018, and then to increase the state pension age for both men and women to 66 by 2020. As so many Members have mentioned today, this is a U-turn that hits women aged around 56 to 57 particularly hard. It means that 4.9 million people are affected, 2.6 million being women and 2.3 million men. Some 500,000 women born between 6 October 1953 and 5 March 1955 will have their state pension delayed by more than a year, with the 300,000 born between 6 December 1953 and 5 October 1954 waiting an extra 18 months or more. The 33,000 women facing a two-year delay will suffer a loss in income of £10,000, while for those in receipt of pension credit, the figure is closer to £15,000. Those women are being made to accommodate the changes within less than seven years.
	Women are already at a significant disadvantage in pension provision. The median pension savings of a 56-year-old woman amount to just £9,100, which is almost a sixth of the same figure for a man, which stands at £52,800. That is why this is such an important issue and why so many Members have concentrated on it. It is not fair to speed up the equalisation timetable. We oppose any change before 2020. The Government must stick to their coalition agreement promise. However, we support an acceleration of the timetable for both men and women from 65 to 66 between 2020 and 2022. That would achieve the aim of reaching a state pension age of 66 more quickly, but would affect 1.2 million fewer people than under the current plans, and affect an equal number of men and women.
	The reason given for the changes is that we cannot afford not to make them because of the budget deficit. With respect, that is just incorrect. When the coalition Government made their promise, they knew what the deficit was. This is another example of the coalition saying one thing to get into power and another thing in power. For example, during the election the Tories said that there would be no VAT rise. They knew the deficit then, so why did they promise no VAT rise? They also said that there would be no top-to-bottom review of the health service, which would cost £3 billion. The Lib Dems knew about the deficit, yet they still said that there would be no rise in tuition fees. The Tories said that Equitable Life people would get a fair share of remuneration, yet they have backtracked on that, too, even though, as some of us have suggested, if the deficit is the issue, those people can receive some payments now and some later—that is, after 2015. Further, we are told that the Government’s measures will cut the deficit by 2015, yet the provisions in the Bill will come into play after 2015.
	The Bill also deals with automatic enrolment. The Labour Government were legislating to introduce auto-enrolment into workplace pensions, which is a good thing because we estimated that 7 million people were not saving enough for their retirement. To ensure an adequate retirement income, we built cross-party consensus to introduce auto-enrolment. That meant that people would opt out of pension savings, rather than opting in. Combining a minimum employer contribution and the creation of a pension scheme that could be used by any employer, the measure was expected to lead to a change in the level of participation in pension savings.
	The Government are proceeding with the introduction of auto-enrolment, which we welcome, but they are limiting its scope. They are raising the salary level at
	which someone will automatically be enrolled from £5,000 to £7,475, which will result in 600,000 fewer people being auto-enrolled in a pension scheme, a disproportionate number of whom will be women. The Government are also introducing a three-month waiting period before auto-enrolment, which they predict will mean that 500,000 fewer people will be automatically enrolled. Most people have an average of 11 different employers over their working lives, so this provision could lead to a loss of almost three years’ pension for many people. I know that the Secretary of State has said that he will listen, and I ask the Government to reconsider these issues, which have been raised by Member after Member, certainly on this side of the House, today.

Rachel Reeves: Today’s debate has shown the concern and anger that exists at the rapid rise in the state pension age. Members on both sides of the House have had the chance to show that they are listening to their constituents, and they now have the chance to assure the women who will be affected that they understand their plight and are willing to vote down these changes.
	We have heard from 20 Back Benchers today, but only two—the hon. Members for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) and for Witham (Priti Patel)—have spoken in defence of the policies as they stand. That was a brave decision to take, but I believe that it was ultimately the wrong one. The reasons for the concerns being expressed across the House are clear. As many hon. Members have said, under the proposals, 500,000 women will have to wait more than a year longer for their state pension, with 33,000 having to wait two years longer.
	We all know that life expectancy is increasing, so the state pension age needs to rise. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) pointed out that the women writing to her understand that, too. However, it cannot be right for a particular group of women to have their state pension age increased at a faster rate than anyone else’s with such little notice. All hon. Members have emphasised that point today. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) said that there was no evidence that life expectancy was increasing for 57-year-old women at a faster rate than for anyone else, so why are those women being asked to shoulder so much of the burden? My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) said that the changes will start to kick in just five years from now, in 2016, giving much less notice than the 10 years that Age UK, the Turner report and the Pensions Policy Institute recommend.
	Let us think about the women who will be affected, as my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Thamesmead, for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and for Sunderland Central did in their eloquent speeches. The women hit by these changes are the backbone of our families. They are the mums who took time off work to bring up their children, the daughters who are helping their parents as they get older, and the grans who are providing child care for their children’s children, to help their children to balance work and family life. They are the women who have done the right thing. They have looked after their families, they have worked
	hard and they have played by the rules. They want to look forward to their retirement, not worry about how to make ends meet as they see the pension age being changed again. Moving the goalposts so near to retirement is unfair and unjust. A year ago, the Government seemed to get it. The coalition agreement said that women’s state pension age would not start to rise to 66 before 2020. However, that promise has been breached, and women are being hit hard.
	The last few weeks have been filled with speculation that the Government were about to perform a U-turn. We have heard rumours of numerous proposals and options. However, the Secretary of State told us this afternoon that he was going to stand by the proposed timetable, although only this morning the Financial Times reported him saying:
	“I understand there are issues and problems and I’ll constantly look at ways to see whether there’s a way of doing”
	something about that. What is the truth? Hon. Members who spoke today seemed to think that concessions will be forthcoming for the women most affected by the Bill, but what assurances can the pensions Minister give to that effect, as we are none the wiser after today’s debate?
	Given the double-speak, it is no wonder that utter confusion reigns. The women affected and everyone else planning for retirement need time and they deserve certainty. Even the hon. Members for Grantham and Stamford and for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) say they want certainty in policy, but these proposals are inducing the exact opposite—huge uncertainty. What the Government are offering is utter chaos. It is another example of the shambles at the heart of this Government and symptomatic of what is fundamentally wrong with their approach. Ministers should listen, consult, assess the impact and only then make policy. At the moment, things are happening the wrong way round. That is why the Government are in this mess.
	Hon. Members have picked up on many clauses this afternoon—including my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), who spoke thoughtfully about the benefits of automatic enrolment of workers into occupational pensions. Automatic enrolment was introduced by the last Labour Government and is set to mean an extra 7 million people saving towards their retirement. As my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) have said, we regret the watering down of auto-enrolment, as well as the waiting period and the increased threshold before people become enrolled automatically.
	Of course, the issue we have heard most about today, on which I shall focus the rest of my comments, are the changes to the state pension age. I will build on the thoughtful speeches made by so many Members of all parties, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South and my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North, but also the hon. Members for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott).
	The plans we have debated today simply do not meet the test of fairness. These changes mean that half a million people will have to wait more than a year longer for their state pension. The hon. Member for Grantham
	and Stamford called these women “rough edges”; I call them 500,000 women and their families who have had their plans thrown out of the water so close to their retirement date.

Rachel Reeves: I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Grantham and Stamford will feel very reassured that he does not regard them as rough edges, but speaks of the rough edges that have resulted from this Government’s policies.
	These changes mean a loss of income of up to £10,000 for these women. For those in receipt of pension credit, the loss is closer to £15,000. There is something particularly perverse about targeting this specific group of women. As my hon. Friends the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) have said, the average 57-year-old woman has just £9,100-worth of pension savings compared to £52,800 for a man of the same age—a sixfold difference. About 40% of 57-year-old women have no private savings to fall back on, so how can these changes be fair?
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen South, for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun have said, all this goes against the coalition agreement that stated that the changes would not start to kick in before 2020. The Secretary of State says that the breach reflects legal advice, but when I asked him to place it in the Library, he did not guarantee to do so. I do not think there is anything illegal about sticking to a commitment and I urge Ministers to publish that legal advice and explain the breach. No one in the country voted for these policies. It is not what coalition MPs signed up to, and there is absolutely no obligation on Government Members to support the breach when we vote this evening.
	During this afternoon’s debate, we have heard very few attempts to defend the proposals that we are now being asked to vote on—and I am not surprised. Time after time, Government Members have called for a rethink. Having heard the depth of anger up and down the country, the Government’s excuse that women are living longer simply does not hold water. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) raised the issue of increasing longevity, but he still concedes that these changes are unfair. After all, he will have to explain the 1,000 women aged 56 and 57 in Ipswich why they will have to bear the brunt of increasing life expectancy for everybody. The same is true of the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), who pointed to increasing longevity but ultimately concluded that the Government’s proposed changes are unfair on the 1,000 women aged
	56 and 57 in his constituency. This applies to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who has 1,100 such women in his constituency to answer to.
	The hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) referred to the Government’s introduction of a triple lock guarantee, but he too has serious problems with the Government’s plans. After all, he will need to explain himself to the 1,200 women aged 56 and 57 in his constituency. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) referred to unintended victims of the proposals. There are 1,300 unintended victims in his constituency. The hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) defended the broad direction of Government policy, but referred to the unfair treatment of the 1,200 women aged 56 and 57 in his constituency. The hon. Member for Cardiff Central spoke in support of pension reform, but was nevertheless vocal in her opposition to these particular proposals. Given that her constituency contains 700 women aged 56 and 57, no wonder she wrote on her website this morning that the Government needed to
	“think again about these plans and find a way to make them fairer”.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh West, whose constituency contains 1,100 women aged 56 and 57, thinks that the changes are too severe. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford talked of the 1,300 women aged 56 and 57 in his constituency. I wonder what he will say in reply to the letters from his constituents that I am sure are building up in his office. Will he say that the proposals are just the side effects of the rough edges of this policy? The hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) talked of people living longer, but expressed no understanding of the 1,000 women aged 56 and 57 in her constituency. I hope that they were listening to her remarks.

Steve Webb: Interestingly, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague the shadow Minister are saying two different things. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the sum for the changes up to 2020 is £10 billion. His shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), says we should delay to 2020 and find £10 billion therefore, while he wants to vote against the Bill and find £30 billion at some time in the 2030s. I think the House knows where we stand on that.
	I am grateful to those Members who took the trouble to address auto-enrolment, but the shadow Secretary of State glossed over that issue. He said we ought to enrol at £5,000, which is not the right figure, but let us accept it for the sake of argument. He then said we should not put up the threshold. Therefore, under his scheme with the threshold at £5,000, someone who earned £5,100 would be auto-enrolled on that £100, and as we start at 1%, they would have to put in £1—not £1 a week, but £1 a year, or 2p a week. That is what will happen if we do not let this Bill make progress. We will be requiring employers and employees to put 2p per week into the
	employee’s pension. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that might in any sense undermine the credibility of our proposals?

Steve Webb: As there were 25 contributions to the debate, I want to try to respond to some of the points that were made, and then I will certainly give way some more.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans)—indeed, Cardiff was well represented in the debate: by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) and by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), who raised issues relating to Allied Steel and Wire—pointed out Labour’s track record on pensions. He was right to do so, because although one or two Opposition Members glossed over history, he reminded us of the 75p pension increase—something that can never happen again under our triple lock. He reminded us of the failure of the previous Government to get to grips with Equitable Life; of the tax grab by the previous Chancellor and Prime Minister on company pensions. That is not a proud record.
	The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, made a characteristically thoughtful contribution and I am grateful for her support for our abolition of the default retirement age. The link to that issue has not often been made in today’s debate. The previous Government were planning to raise the state pension age to 66, 67 or 68—but to leave it as legal to sack people for turning 65. There is a logical flaw there, and I am sure the House is ahead of me on that. It is therefore right that we have taken away employers’ ability to sack people for the “sin” of turning 65.
	I am also grateful for the hon. Lady’s support for our going ahead with the National Employment Savings Trust and the flexibility around auto-enrolment in 2012. She asked whether our £10 billion estimate of the cost of delay to 2020 was a gross or net figure. It is a net figure, taking account of benefit offsets. However, a lot of the points that she and a number of other Members made would apply whenever we raised state pension ages. For example, it was the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce), I think, who asked,
	“What will happen to volunteers? What will happen to carers?” Those are important questions, but they would of course arise whenever state pension ages are raised—and she supports a party that legislated to raise the pension age to 68. She is right that these issues need to be addressed, but they exist not specifically because of this Bill but because of legislation that is already in place.

Andrew Robathan: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for securing this debate on the very tragic death of Private Gary Barlow slightly over 38 years ago. As it happens, I know the Divis flats and the observation tower. I have served and seen the difficulties of operating there, as did the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment in 1973.
	Private Barlow joined the Army in 1970 and went into the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment, and he deployed to Northern Ireland with his regiment in the early years of Operation Banner, at the end of 1972, when the violence in Northern Ireland was at its height. Tragically he was killed in Belfast on 5 March 1973 aged just 19. There was absolutely no doubt who killed him: responsibility for his death was admitted by the IRA and the murderous thugs who supported it in the Divis flats. He was part of a four-man patrol that had deployed to search an area following a series of shooting incidents. The patrol was forced to withdraw rapidly as a hostile crowd had gathered, and Private Barlow was in the process of searching a garage at the time and did not withdraw with the rest of his unit, as we have heard.
	Unfortunately it was not until later that Private Barlow’s patrol realised that he was missing—the hon. Lady brought out one or two very good points about that—and returned to retrieve him, by which time he had been shot and injured by the IRA. Tragically, he succumbed to his injuries in hospital later that night. Had he lived, Private Barlow would have seen his 58th birthday this week. He was one of more than 250,000 service personnel who saw service in Northern Ireland during the 38 years of Operation Banner, which was the longest single operation ever mounted by the British Army. The Army demonstrated a resolute, disciplined and flexible attitude towards adapting to a unique deployment of military forces on UK territory—it was never a happy occasion. The resilience that our soldiers displayed over such a long period and under extremely difficult circumstances greatly contributed to the peace that now exists. They and the community at large have suffered death and injury, and we should again take this opportunity to remember their commitment, bravery and sacrifice, and that of Private Barlow.
	In recognition of the ultimate sacrifice paid by Private Barlow, his mother, Mrs Rona Barlow, has already been presented with the Elizabeth cross and the memorial scroll. The Elizabeth cross is awarded as a symbol of national recognition of the sacrifice and loss of those UK armed forces personnel who have died on operations or owing to acts of terrorism. It is a reminder of the contribution made by those who have paid the ultimate price for our freedom and our security, and of how highly their service is valued. Regrettably, however, it is not for me to recommend that Private Barlow be given a further award. Our honours and awards system relies on the bestowal of gallantry awards soon after the event for which it is believed an individual’s actions should be recognised.
	The convention adhered to is that no award can be made for an event that took place more than five years previously. To rely on incomplete and sometimes contradictory or anecdotal evidence so long after the event can be regarded as a slight to those commanders
	at all levels whose task it was to reward the most deserving as they judged at the time. This system has been developed over many years, and is designed to ensure that the process by which awards are made is fair and consistent, and it has stood the test of time. Neither the present Government nor any previous Administration have departed from the strict rule that British gallantry awards are not granted retrospectively.
	Recommendations for gallantry awards are generated by commanders in the field and scrutinised at a number of levels by military committees, the last of which is the Armed Forces Operational Awards Committee, which comprises five senior officers representing all three services, and which ultimately recommends to Her Majesty the Queen who should receive awards. This process is completely independent of political influence, and it would not be possible—nor would it be right—for me to seek to influence this process. On a personal note, however, I would like to take this opportunity to pass on my condolences to Mrs Barlow for the loss of her son, and to express my deep gratitude for his service to this country and her dignity in grief. I would also like to take this opportunity to put it on the record that we are fortunate to have individuals such as Gary Barlow, both then and now, who are willing to demonstrate their bravery by serving with our armed forces. In the words of his commanding officer while expressing his and his regiment’s sadness and horror at Private Barlow’s death:
	“He was a fine boy and a good and brave soldier”.
	I am told—the hon. Lady mentioned this too—that the family were subjected to intense and often unwelcome media and public scrutiny, and to threats. I am sincerely sorry for the additional distress that this must have caused them. In the 1970s, when Private Barlow was killed, very little support was offered to bereaved families by the military, so I would also like to take this opportunity to reassure his family and the House that measures now exist to prevent other families from suffering the same experience.
	Each death of a member of our armed forces is a tragedy—for their comrades and the country, but most especially for their family, such as Private Barlow’s family. As the years have progressed, I believe that we have got better at learning the lessons from each death, both in the field and in how we help and support the families left behind. Gone now are the days when the first that a family heard about the death of their loved one was a tersely worded official telegram. Despite the challenges of 24-hour media, we are largely successful at ensuring that families hear from us before impromptu and unofficial sources when a tragedy occurs. Sadly, with the increasing operational tempo since 9/11, we have learned a lot about loss and grief, and so have steadily improved the support and help available to families who lose a loved one. Every effort is made to ensure that the next of kin are informed as soon as possible by those who are appropriately trained, and a period of grace is given before the official announcement is made. It grieves me to say that this is going on even this week, as we know.
	Since 2005 we have appointed and trained both casualty notification officers and visiting officers, so that the support that we offer families is not provided by those associated with the delivery of the worst news. Our
	dedicated visiting officers are able to guide, support and assist families through the difficult times of the repatriation ceremony, funeral arrangements and the return of their loved one’s effects. The hon. Lady was quite right to draw attention to the way in which this could sometimes be done in an arbitrary manner, with the arrival of some boxes containing a loved one’s effects. Visiting officers can be assigned to a bereaved family for six to nine months, but support remains available through the Army’s inquiries and aftercare support cell, right up to an inquest and beyond, unlike in 1973.
	All families show different reactions to the loss of a loved one. Our visiting officers are trained to understand the differences and react accordingly, so that the level of support received is determined by the need of the family. The support is therefore enduring in nature and co-ordinated in provision. In addition to giving emotional support, the visiting officer can act as a conduit to practical support regarding pensions, counselling and financial matters. This includes access to public funds that are available to help families attend the significant events associated with their bereavement, helping with funeral expenses, travel to the repatriation, funeral and inquest, and accommodation. Public funds are also available to help families after their initial period of grief and mourning to move on with their lives, through the continuity of education allowance, the maintenance of the living overseas allowance, the ability to remain in service accommodation for up to two years and the transfer of the resettlement allowance. These are changes that have happened since 1973.
	I referred earlier to the lessons that are now learned in the field. The Army keeps all its procedures under continuous review to ensure the safety of its personnel. Additionally, systems exist at various levels to identify lessons from incidents and make recommendations to take action to prevent similar circumstances from arising in future, including, where necessary, a statutory service inquiry and, when there is a death during operations, a service police investigation. We are not complacent. Despite the strides that have been made in recent years, we recognise that more can always be done. The armed forces covenant, which was published on 16 May, sets out what service personnel and their families can expect from the Government and the nation in recognition of what we ask them to do to keep us safe. The Government are determined to remove disadvantages encountered as a result of service, as well as ensuring that the armed forces community receives the recognition to which it is entitled. By publishing the covenant we have a clear sense of what we are trying to achieve and have established the right direction of travel that we will allow us to so.
	As a nation, we have an obligation to our servicemen and women who, like Gary Barlow, commit themselves to the service of this country and risk paying the ultimate price to keep us safe, as well as to the families who support their loved ones in the armed forces through good times and bad. Our commitment to them should be just as enduring, and with the publication of the covenant, we believe that we have established a way of ensuring that this commitment does not waver. The nation will hold us to account.
	I reiterate what I said to the hon. Lady earlier. This was an awful tragedy. As it happens, I also joined the Army in 1970, and to think of a young man of 19 being killed in that way in Northern Ireland must bring us all
	grief. I hope that raising this matter in the House of Commons will lead the Barlow family, and Mrs Rona Barlow and the sister whom the hon. Lady mentioned in particular, to appreciate that Private Barlow’s death is recognised and truly appreciated by the nation.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.